Fergie charged by the FA again

Shamikebab · 17 May 2011 at 22:18

Yeah interesting how Carlo was never mentioned by them in the first place isn't it...

Perhaps they found out on the internet.

Tom84 · 17 May 2011 at 23:08

Shamikebab said:
Yeah interesting how Carlo was never mentioned by them in the first place isn't it...

Perhaps they found out on the internet.

Nor was he ever publicly charged by the FA for improper conduct like SAF was....

Dabbles · 17 May 2011 at 23:11

Tom84 said:
Nor was he ever publicly charged by the FA for improper conduct like SAF was....

SAF 'plays the [mind] game' more than anyone else in the league. I'm glad the FA are at least showing the pretence that they are standing up to him.

Shamikebab · 17 May 2011 at 23:22

Mind games are against the rules as well now are they?

Dabbles · 17 May 2011 at 23:29

Shamikebab said:
Mind games are against the rules as well now are they?

When they're against the referees, yes. :confused:

Shamikebab · 18 May 2011 at 00:09

I forgot, they're all simpletons. I'm sure Webb was planning to ref it fairly but then got well brainwashed by Fergie telling him he was good.

Dabbles · 18 May 2011 at 00:19

Shamikebab said:
I forgot, they're all simpletons. I'm sure Webb was planning to ref it fairly but then got well brainwashed by Fergie telling him he was good.

The argument the FA are using is that the referee is now 'influenced' by one of the team's managers. Hence he will have in the back of his mind Mr Ferguson's 'flattery' of his refereeing prowess and may allow one or two (half) descisions to flow the way of that team.

Tom84 · 18 May 2011 at 00:21

Dabbles said:
SAF 'plays the [mind] game' more than anyone else in the league. I'm glad the FA are at least showing the pretence that they are standing up to him.

You cant punish someone on an assumption or a theory

Dabbles · 18 May 2011 at 00:23

Tom84 said:
You cant punish someone on an assumption or a theory

He knew the rules. He broke them. He got punished. (Albeit only with a warning.)

Tom84 · 18 May 2011 at 00:43

Dabbles said:
He knew the rules. He broke them. He got punished. (Albeit only with a warning.)

That's not what you said though is it, you said the FA were right to charge him because he's playing mind games saying something positive about Webb. Your theory is neither here nor there you cant charge someone on an assumption.

The FA have simply charged him because apparently now you cant talk about ref's in any context.

I assume if you believe this rule has been brought in because of managers trying to influence referee's you also believe that Ancolotti was playing mind games praising Webb as well then?

Dabbles · 18 May 2011 at 07:56

Tom84 said:
I assume if you believe this rule has been brought in because of managers trying to influence referee's you also believe that Ancolotti was playing mind games praising Webb as well then?

Any mention of a referee's past of future performances by a manager is an attempt to influence referees' future performances and decisions.

DBT85 · 18 May 2011 at 08:29

Dabbles said:
Any mention of a referee's past of future performances by a manager is an attempt to influence referees' future performances and decisions.

So refereeing is now a completely thankless job as no one is ever allowed to say that they did a good job even if its true? The only people allowed to mention the referee are pundits and the press. So the press can go wild accusing the ref of being bias or unhinged and no manager can say "No I think the penalty was right".

Excellent.

Shamikebab · 18 May 2011 at 09:06

We better lock refs in a box is they're so easily influenced. Surely they'll be influenced by the world as well?

Weebull · 18 May 2011 at 09:46

Or we could just tell managers to shut the hell up? That could work too.

Shamikebab · 18 May 2011 at 09:51

But then they get fined for that as well. It's an absurd system.

Peg · 18 May 2011 at 10:26

Pulis looks like he is in trouble now according to Sky Sports News for these remarks.

"Howard is a great ref in my book, and certainly as good as there is.

"We are pleased to have him. What makes him special is that little bit of an aura he has about him.

"He deals with players very well and I think most people in the game respect him."

This happened a month ago before the FA Cup Semi-final against Bolton.

Gackt · 18 May 2011 at 11:00

Can they really set a rule that says "You can only talk about referees if you talk about them in a good way"? That makes a mockery of the whole concept itself.

And then what, do you allow managers like SAF bleat on about how they get the bad decisions, and the bad referees? What happens when all the teams go mad about how "they would have won if the ref wasn't so ****"?

Frankly, a blanket rule seems the only option unless we allow managers and players to openly criticise the refereeing. (taking into account there'll always be personal bias)

Tom84 · 18 May 2011 at 11:05

There actually isn't a rule in place that stops managers talking about a ref after a game, so managers can moan all they want about the poor decisions made during the game..... you just cant praise them before a game